When a given demographic is a dominant presence in a given area (not necessarily work, it can be anything), there is a tendency for they demographic to start making assumptions about other demographics.
In most places, men are the dominant presence, and in most of the “western” world, they will also be white.
In this case, the individual who a white male was doing what’s called colloquially, “mansplaining”. He was correcting a woman when not only was the woman right, but was the very source he was using to correct her.
This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.
In this specific case, I suspect that the person making that post was pointing to the prejudice and stupidity of the person indirectly insulting her being a systemic issue arising from both gender and sexual entrenchment along with the privilege that allows the dominance of the white male demographic despite their being no quantifiable factor for that group to be dominant other than that privilege.
She, in other words, was pointing out a systemic issue by using an anecdote. Which can be a bit difficult to accept as evidence. Or would be if there wasn’t a good century or so of giant piles of anecdotes from real people pointing to that systemic issue not only existing, but being something that holds everyone back.
Truth? Yes, women and people of color are going to assume they’re right and whoever they’re talking to is wrong just like any humans will. But white dudes have been pulling that crap for multiple generations, and anyone that isn’t both white and male get sick of the bad behavior.
This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.
Citation needed.
In all seriousness, I understand your point and respect you for trying to deconstruct the mechanics of privilege.
But I just factually disagree with your assertion. I would argue that every human being has an inherent preference for people that they perceive as similar to themselves in some way, and this can result in bias along racial or gender lines. However, this arguably applies less to white men than any other demographic, because such behavior is so consistently condemned and shamed when exhibited by white men.
In contrast, people of other demographics are less frequently made aware of their own biases, because calling it out has not been construed as some kind of ethical imperative, as it has with white men.
It’s also well documented that women have a much stronger in-group bias compared to men.
In essence, women can be characterized as “If I am good and I am female, females are good,” whereas men can be characterized as “Even if I am good and I am male, men are not necessarily good.” This sex difference in cognitive balance suggests that a mechanism that promotes female preference in women does not similarly contribute to male preference for men.
Privilege is writing off your own privilege as inherent in nature and then pointing at other groups of people going “but they’re allowed it’s not fair!!!”
Your barely-in-context paper is not support for your main argument :
However, this arguably applies less to white men than any other demographic, because such behavior is so consistently condemned and shamed when exhibited by white men.
Do you have any citations that actually support your claim? Because it sounds like vibes “please don’t say mean things about my group” bullshit.
That’s not my main argument, it’s merely a supporting clause.
OP asserted that
white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.
I countered that by pointing out that it’s obvious that any human being tends to prefer people who they consider similar to themselves. That’s my main argument.
And if that is true, then attempting to frame such behavior as particular to white men is just silly and unproductive.
I obviously can’t definitively measure the amount of social stigma around white male prejudice, but I don’t need to. I’m not saying that white men are definitely less biased than other demographics, I’m merely pointing out that it’s a distinct possibility, even as you all indicate that they are the demographic most deserving of condemnation for such behavior.
Now, one could make the argument that even though white men may not be especially biased, the effects of their bias may have greater impacts on other demographics due to the disproportionate amount of power they collectively wield. I think that’s a fair point, but it doesn’t really hold any ethical implications, it’s simply a description of a material reality.
Personally I believe that large parts of this discussion and topic are simply human nature.
Any group with power, will seek to keep that power, and to increase their standing over the other people. If history had played out differently and asian or black people were the historical in-group we would have the exact same situations and issues as we have today. Only another enemy.
I agree. People tend to ascribe inherent traits to other groups, when in fact observed behaviors can usually be traced not to inherent dispositions, but to specific environmental conditions that incentivize said behaviors.
For instance, a white man in our current social environment who exhibits a confident, assertive attitude is well situated to succeed. White men are expected to be competent and often rewarded for appearing competent, so they sometimes attempt to exaggerate their competence in order to meet the perceived expectations.
…it’s obvious that any human being tends to prefer people who they consider similar to themselves.
Doesn’t your paper you linked imply it isn’t so obvious? I still stand by that it’s not really relevant so I’ll just say that I fully disagree with your argument or the implication that you have somehow proven anything.
I’ll repeat something I said in another comment:
It is intentionally, intellectually dishonest and obtuse to pretend that condemnation of systemic problems resulting from unfair biases for/from certain demographics is as bad as the systemic problems in question.
You just pretend you are unaware of massive swaths of history in order to act offended that anyone would make generic statements about an infamously problematic demographic. And you falsely equate any attempt to talk generically about the problematic behaviour to the same issue, as a transparent tactic to suppress discussion of the problematic behaviour entirely.
I’m sure you will have some bullshit response that will annoy me again but I’m gunna try to let it go because I find talking to you unpleasant.
Doesn’t your paper you linked imply it isn’t so obvious?
Yeah sure, in the absence of any other data.
If you refuse to acknowledge that people like people similar to themselves, you’re not being honest with yourself, let alone me.
What is the systemic problem/problematic behavior that you are trying to solve? You clearly believe that white men are especially discriminatory towards other groups, which isn’t crazy, although I disagree. But are you so naive to think that if we replaced the powerful white men with powerful hispanic women (or any other combination of race and gender), racial and gender-based discrimination would suddenly end? I’m just pointing out the inconvenient truth that the system would still be biased and unfair, just with different winners and losers.
In my view, the fact that some white men are biased for or against certain groups is completely insignificant and irrelevant to solving the problems that society faces today. It’s the fundamental structure of the economic and political system that naturally results in the few individuals at the top of the hierarchy expressing a large degree of control and domination over the rest of the society.
The idea that humans are inherently predisposed to subjugate those different from themselves is a fascist belief that fascists say to justify fascism. So… Not a fan of that line of thought, thanks
It has nothing to do with subjugation, it’s just preference. I prefer to spend time with my family, I’m not subjugating other people by doing so.
But in the context of a corporate oligarchy where my absurd wealth means that my family is unfairly enriched to the detriment of the workers that I employ, it becomes subjugation. It’s not humans, it’s the socioeconomic system that exists that is causing all of this suffering and needs to be supplanted.
This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.
Pls stop generalizing this bad behavior upon all white men. It only serves to further the divide, and is completely unfair and uncalled for against those in the demographic who don’t subscribe to those beliefs or patterns of behavior.
I’m not sure if that was your intent, that’s just how it comes across and it makes it hard not to completely write off your argument/viewpoints for being unable to respect your neighbor.
I’m a white man. I can absolutely generalize about a well known aspect of reality. It isn’t in question that white men are currently in a position of overall privilege, and that as a group that position of privilege has the effect stated.
I pretty much also said that this is true in the western world where white men are the supposed majority. I said that the same would be the case with any dominant group because humans are just like that.
A generalization can not only be true in general, but it doesn’t inherently mean that the entire group is at fault (beyond any unintentional benefits from the situation, which is what’s called privilege in current discourse on matters of gender and race in specific, but applies to more than those alone).
Here’s the thing. Until and unless we, not just as white men (speaking of the group I’m in) work on calling out and correcting bad behaviors as a group, to the point that it ceases to be a problem for others, we are part of the problem, no matter how little any individual likes that.
Divisions currently exist. They will always exist because any time there is a place of authority/power, there will be those that seek it and use it. Over time, you might see a given demographic shift in and out of that place of power, but it won’t change humans being humans; there will be abuse of power.
That’s the real key. The fact that white men have held dominance over most of the world for centuries (for a given value of most, and a given value of white) is simply fact. One could argue that the position of dominance really covers all the world since anyone wanting to disrupt that has to contend against that hierarchy. There are definitely places where, within a region* white men aren’t the dominant group, kinda impossible to be otherwise. But trying to pretend that the world isn’t the way it is is just silly.
Completely agree with your points. But also hope you can see it may be more fruitful to appear as though you’re ready to attack the problem, rather than your fellow man.
I say this because I didn’t read this as an outright attack or denigration of your fellow man, but I very much fear how easily any other man may interpret it and how it could serve to further the divide and make the problem even harder to address. That is my chief concern.
I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your position fellow internet stranger <3
I think the generalization isn’t really about white men per se, but about the demographic in power. Give a group unchecked power long enough and they forget how that came to be. I agree that it’s not a rule, and maybe should be expressed as more of a heuristic: if you are speaking to someone that is in power, and you don’t look like them, they might think you are not empowered.
Don’t let the lack of nuance in that statement take away from all the very valid points being made. The plight is real, and hopefully the white men who are enlightened enough to not confuse circumstance with natural order will read and know to not take it personally.
Completely agree about unchecked power and your interpretation of it as a heuristic rather than an ambiguously defined trait.
I most certainly realize the plight is real and wish it never was like I’d hope all of us can say. But the lack of nuance struck me as dangerous. I understand how disenfranchised men will interpret things, and when people willfully neglect the opportunity to be concise it leaves a worrying amount of room for misinterpretation and effectively is ragebait that can serve to further entrench a misguided incel or the like into their toxic niche.
And for anyone who thinks I’m overreacting: see how Reddit powermod awkward_the_turtle intentionally acted to provoke men, then wrote off everyone who took issue with it as inherently being member of the ideology they were allegedly targeting. Reddit, the company, enabled and encouraged this mod and their collaborators to attack users on their platform indiscriminately.
If Lemmy is to serve as only a new platform for abuse, then it deserves to die with the rest of social media. Please, do not let it come to this. Discuss and debate civilly.
When a given demographic is a dominant presence in a given area (not necessarily work, it can be anything), there is a tendency for they demographic to start making assumptions about other demographics.
Isn’t she the one making assumptions, though? Specifically, the “prejudice and stupidity of the person indirectly insulting her” part? I mean, is that really the only possible explanation?
What other reason would you suggest as to why he would assume that he knows more than her or that she couldn’t be the person that he’s referring to? Clearly he didn’t even know her name yet so what did he have to go by to draw those conclusions? It obviously wasn’t her lack of knowledge on the subject that they were discussing now was it?
I still don’t see why adding the skin color was important, but eh, I have other things to deal with, so I don’t really care, just found it slightly annoying.
Because the 'splaining phenomenon is about perceived but unearned superiority which leads the 'splainer to 'splain to someone who knows a great deal more than they do and, crucially, someone who the 'splainer ought to realise knows more than they do but doesn’t because of the illusion created by the society they live in.
I’d have added “(born) middle-class” because that’s an important part of it too.
Are Black trans women known for this kind of behaviour? Are there apologists for Black trans women who make every effort to miss the fucking point that there are people who think this isn’t a thing that happens?
Nobody is saying all white men are like this, what they are saying that it is only white men who do this.
Being a white man who is aware of the stereotype, I in no way feel attacked by it. I do feel aware that I need to be careful not to interrupt my colleagues or to mansplain things that I may be less knowledgeable about. This response from me is beneficial to both myself and the people I interact with.
I agree that it is derogatory to mansplain to someone, like to tell an expert in a subject that they don’t know what they’re talking about and thinking that’s okay because they are a woman.
Nonody is “known” for that behaviour. You really just seem to ascribe personality traits to people based on their skin color. I thought we were long past that.
It is intentionally, intellectually dishonest and obtuse to pretend that condemnation of systemic problems resulting from unfair biases for/from certain demographics is as bad as the systemic problems in question.
How many black trans women are in positions of authority? To not remark on that would be unusual. Mind you, the chances of a black trans woman making it to that kind of position and holding on to the kind of stupidity in the original post is pretty damn slim, hence the surprise.
It’s not obvious? Because white males as a demographic are the most privileged people on the planet and not coincidentally also the ones most prone to petty, oblivious arrogance, tantrum-throwing, and egotistical man-splaining. The latter was demonstrated by the one in this NASA scientist’s anecdote.
This robs people of their individual context. The UK Prime Ministers wife is Indian and astonishingly privileged. You are suggesting a poor mine worker from Romania is somehow more privileged based on how he looks.
Lumping people into loose categories (particularly based on skin colour) and then prescribing loose values to them is fascist and racist.
Intersectionality is the idea that various forms of privilege and circumstance interact with each other to make an individual. Certain influences are more impactful upon a particular person’s circumstances, and thus influence privilege to a much greater extent. The non-linear nature that DinosaurThussy is talking about can better be shown with examples.
If you’re homeless and white it’s clear that you’re in a worse off situation than a billionaire who is black. Class status has a far greater influence on this situation. It would be fair to say that the black billionaire has more privilege due to his class status but not his ethnic identity. That being said, it’s unlikely that the white man was denied a job due to his race in a way a homeless black person may be. Being poor and white and poor and black have many commonalities, but intersectional analysis allows us to understand the different ways and avenues that particular characteristics influences the ways that a person may end up in a particular circumstance.
The idea continues on. A person who is a billionaire may be significantly shielded from a lot of racism, or face it in a less extreme way. For example, that proverbial black billionaire likely wouldn’t have many run ins with racist cops in impoverished neighborhoods. However, he still might face the unifying characteristic of being called a slur by his peers in the way that a poor black person might. His privilege of wealth may not complete inoculate him facing racism at all, even if he faces it in a less extreme way.
In essence, this situation is viewing individuals dialectic-ly. It seeks to understand how all of a person’s identity and circumstances relate to the struggles and oppression certain groups or people may face in society.
I empathise with most of this and thank you for bothering to respond without resorting to 4chan energy.
The problem that remains unresolved is the refusal of some people to acknowledge that, like in science, observation is not without cost. What ends up happening is the observation of these trends then causes casualties of blame - in your example we could say the huge population of white people who dont fundamentally see black people in any light other than equal. An insult based on a black billionaire being a greedy billionaire gets called racially charged, when actually, it’s entirely class based. This reliably means that (for example) white working class boys/girls are left to rot.
Personally I see most of these prejudicial issues being an exclusively American problem that has been exported abroad, to the extent now that its difficult to untangle.
America has prejudicial issues at astonishing levels compared to the rest of the developed world. Obviously its an absurd statement to say there is no predujude abroad in the western world, but the US has the controlling stake in it, and happens to be an infectious cultural juggernaut.
Personally I see most of these prejudicial issues being an exclusively American problem that has been exported abroad
Have you forgotten who colonised most of the world, including America? This is in no way an American centric issue. Racism exists in most countries on earth.
For example, just because a queer person is white does not mean they experience the same privilege as a cis het white person
Or how all women are oppressed, but the tribulations of white women are Not the same as those facing women of color or trans women, they face more and more varied forms of discrimination, but it doesn’t mean that one is more important or valid than others, just materially different for example
We aren’t talking about another mine worker. We are comparing 2 individuals with certain characteristics. You have instead decided to compare a third individual because the initial comparison made the concept break down
Just because someone is a certain color does not prescribe to them any specific value judgement. As soon as you do that, one of those categories becomes the ongoing scapegoat for everyone’s problems, and it becomes fascist.
Does it ever occur to you that for your arguments to make sense you have to strip it of all context, historical perspecrive or material reality.
I literally didn’t say anything about the us. I’m saying that Romanian is still better off than a minority in Romania that got discriminated again.
Any more reasons for you to smugly ignore everything everybody is repeatedly telling you.
For people who complain about how rude we are and how we’re an echo chamber you’re being shown an incredible amount of patience for how unbearably obtuse you’re intentionally being.
This is precisely the issue that I pointed at before, in reality, not everyone of a certain demographic has an advantage over everyone else of a certain demographic. Its a stupid point to attempt to initiate change because its flawed from the start
I honestly have to pretend that sexism in STEM is nowhere near as bad as I know it is for the sake of my own mental health. I’ve heard incredible stories of blatant sexism from colleagues and friends that I just can’t fathom
I’ve had to defend a close friend from repeated advances and touching, she was an engineer, he was 40 years older than her. It’s a problem. I’ve had good friends get taken advantage of by a PI. Gross. It’s the power dynamic in academia too where one person controls the career outcome of the PhD student. It’s really nuts out there. It’s getting better but that takes time and awareness. I’ve seen what the bad eggs do and they disgust me. It’s not just men, but there are a lot of cases of it.
Do you think that the Prime Ministers wife is less privileged than the Romanian miner? How would you address the discrepancy with the group prescription?
You sound inexperienced. Nothing you will say will even slightly move the needle on my intent or ability to discuss things. You can cry, wail, scream, insult, have a tantrum until you are blue in the face. It makes no difference to me. If you are willing to actually discuss something, then go for it. If you are just going to project your insecurities and view everything as a fight before it’s become one, then you are the barrier to opinions changing based on new information, and nothing else.
Edit: this slap fight below this comment is the reason for this comment originally, that is why it was a joke to point out the instance, Thanks for demonstrating my point lol
I get and accept that you may dislike me based on my comments in this thread, I am more confused as to what the lemmy.zip instance has done to dismiss it outright.
Because everybody makes the same shitty comments and it’s almost more tiring than anything.
If you so graciuosly “accept that we may dislike you” why can’t you understand we wouldn’t like people like you especially when it’s always the same tired bullshit from people like you.
why can’t you understand we wouldn’t like like people like you especially when it’s always the same tired bullshit from people like you.
Where did this come from?
I made one post annoyed about the skin color being complained about, I also noted that I hate the word “mansplaining”, the rest of my comments in this thread have been mostly fine.
So no, I don’t understand the intense dislike for me here, re read my comments and please see if I am so terrible.
It happens to be an instance federated with several idealogy-heavy instances, while itself being a general use instance with simple account creation procedures.
It makes it a popular choice for people who want to make multiple accounts for trolling, as well as people who have unpopular (as far as lemmy goes) ideologies. You can hopefully understand the kind of friction that could create and the reputation is the outcome.
You probably could have figured this out yourself if you just… Looked around. You shouldn’t expect people who are in disagreement with you to explain everything.
Ok, I can sort of see your explanation, but I disagree with you on the fact that other people should not be expected to explain their viewpoints to a person they disagree with.
Not explaining just leads to bickering, with no one getting any point across.
But if you explain the other party may gain a better understanding.
They dont have to you assholes wont stop offering up reasons.
Seriously look at the comments there’s damn near 100% overlap with the people bitching about how this is unfair to old white dudes and people with lemmy.something for a username
Yeah, any of them still confused shout take a step back, read over the thread again and reflect, it’s all there if they stop and think about it, hopefully at least one will, but the rest will continue to be very funny
lol. There is no point in bickering further now that you have started with the insults and ascribed me views that I do not hold, I am not the terrible person you think of, and I will not stoop down to your level and fling insults at you.
So instead I am just going to wish you a pleasant weekend and hope you realize that not everything is as you believe it to be, much less so on the internet.
There never was any fucking point I really dont know why I even bother waste my fucking time trying to talk to you dumbshit liberals who are more concerned with tone policing than acknowledging that racism and sexism exist.
Wow!
This is like saying that if someone owns an axe, they are more likely to be a serial killer. If they also have rolls of black garbage bags, then its even more likely …
The fact that someone owns an axe and garbage bags, does nothing to their likelihood of them being a murder, just like being white and/or a male has nothing to do with the “risk of unearned confidence”.
Are you just going to pretend that there is no racism anywhere else? It was the Europeans that colonised half the planet and invented the concept of “whiteness”, and proceeded to divide and carve Africa up. Are you just going to pretend that this action has had no influence on modern European ideas around race and class? And I haven’t even mentioned the Roma people. Or the ongoing genocide in Palestine, which has a racial component. Or the rise of Hinduistic fascism in India. Or the issues around race in my own country in South Africa. Racism is a global issue.
All you losers acting like you dont understand why the fact it was a white male that was being the ignorant self righteous asshole just shows you aren’t actually serious with engaging with material realities.
You should all really look up what MLK Jr has to say about you white moderates and make an effort to remind yourself people like MLK Jr and Malcolm X think you’re literally worse than white supremacists.
Edit: so… based on the downvotes this gets, its not OK for a male to interrupt but if it had been a female or other gender, then it would have been ok?
Male and Female aren’t genders, they’re Sex, Words used to describe biological makeup of a living creature, for example XX Chromosomes are Female, XY Chromosomes are Male, but there are also instances where XXY Chromosomes can happen, and things get a little tricky.
Gender is what we use to tell children how to behave based on their genetalia and cause dysphoria in them when they don’t want to do something but will get ostracized for doing what people with the other genetalia do.
Thanks. Its a bit confusing to me especially as a none English user. But your description of gender sounds negative. I assume a gender can be a neutral description of oneself? I am not sure.
My point here though is, that OP mentioning it was a male, is as irrelevant as their skin color. I dont see why it needs to be there when they dont add other irrelevant characteristics such as nationality, age, hair color etc.
I would encourage you to do your own research regarding sex and gender. In many parts of the world, these terms are interchangeable. As they were in the US for many years, even after the term gender was popularized.
There’s a lot more to sex than chromosomes. It’s probably better to say it’s clustering of positions on bimodal curves of traits. And even then you wind up with weird shit because biology really doesn’t like simple classifications. Like seriously there are so fucking many ways to be intersex and intersex people are downright common.
But also grammatically male and female when used to refer to humans are generally just the adjectives for man and woman.
It is just mentioned. Just a description of what happened. What’s wrong about saying it was a white male when it was a white male? Why jump to the opinion that mentioning the gender or complexion has any other purpose than being descriptive?
Funny, but what does the skin color have to do with the situation?
It’s a reminder than people that have always been in a privileged position often don’t realize they do.
What privilege applies here?
When a given demographic is a dominant presence in a given area (not necessarily work, it can be anything), there is a tendency for they demographic to start making assumptions about other demographics.
In most places, men are the dominant presence, and in most of the “western” world, they will also be white.
In this case, the individual who a white male was doing what’s called colloquially, “mansplaining”. He was correcting a woman when not only was the woman right, but was the very source he was using to correct her.
This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.
In this specific case, I suspect that the person making that post was pointing to the prejudice and stupidity of the person indirectly insulting her being a systemic issue arising from both gender and sexual entrenchment along with the privilege that allows the dominance of the white male demographic despite their being no quantifiable factor for that group to be dominant other than that privilege.
She, in other words, was pointing out a systemic issue by using an anecdote. Which can be a bit difficult to accept as evidence. Or would be if there wasn’t a good century or so of giant piles of anecdotes from real people pointing to that systemic issue not only existing, but being something that holds everyone back.
Truth? Yes, women and people of color are going to assume they’re right and whoever they’re talking to is wrong just like any humans will. But white dudes have been pulling that crap for multiple generations, and anyone that isn’t both white and male get sick of the bad behavior.
Citation needed.
In all seriousness, I understand your point and respect you for trying to deconstruct the mechanics of privilege.
But I just factually disagree with your assertion. I would argue that every human being has an inherent preference for people that they perceive as similar to themselves in some way, and this can result in bias along racial or gender lines. However, this arguably applies less to white men than any other demographic, because such behavior is so consistently condemned and shamed when exhibited by white men.
In contrast, people of other demographics are less frequently made aware of their own biases, because calling it out has not been construed as some kind of ethical imperative, as it has with white men.
It’s also well documented that women have a much stronger in-group bias compared to men.
https://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudmangoodwin2004jpsp.pdf
Privilege is writing off your own privilege as inherent in nature and then pointing at other groups of people going “but they’re allowed it’s not fair!!!”
Your barely-in-context paper is not support for your main argument :
Do you have any citations that actually support your claim? Because it sounds like vibes “please don’t say mean things about my group” bullshit.
That’s not my main argument, it’s merely a supporting clause.
OP asserted that
I countered that by pointing out that it’s obvious that any human being tends to prefer people who they consider similar to themselves. That’s my main argument.
And if that is true, then attempting to frame such behavior as particular to white men is just silly and unproductive.
I obviously can’t definitively measure the amount of social stigma around white male prejudice, but I don’t need to. I’m not saying that white men are definitely less biased than other demographics, I’m merely pointing out that it’s a distinct possibility, even as you all indicate that they are the demographic most deserving of condemnation for such behavior.
Now, one could make the argument that even though white men may not be especially biased, the effects of their bias may have greater impacts on other demographics due to the disproportionate amount of power they collectively wield. I think that’s a fair point, but it doesn’t really hold any ethical implications, it’s simply a description of a material reality.
Personally I believe that large parts of this discussion and topic are simply human nature.
Any group with power, will seek to keep that power, and to increase their standing over the other people. If history had played out differently and asian or black people were the historical in-group we would have the exact same situations and issues as we have today. Only another enemy.
I agree. People tend to ascribe inherent traits to other groups, when in fact observed behaviors can usually be traced not to inherent dispositions, but to specific environmental conditions that incentivize said behaviors.
For instance, a white man in our current social environment who exhibits a confident, assertive attitude is well situated to succeed. White men are expected to be competent and often rewarded for appearing competent, so they sometimes attempt to exaggerate their competence in order to meet the perceived expectations.
If this is your main argument then:
Doesn’t your paper you linked imply it isn’t so obvious? I still stand by that it’s not really relevant so I’ll just say that I fully disagree with your argument or the implication that you have somehow proven anything.
I’ll repeat something I said in another comment:
It is intentionally, intellectually dishonest and obtuse to pretend that condemnation of systemic problems resulting from unfair biases for/from certain demographics is as bad as the systemic problems in question.
You just pretend you are unaware of massive swaths of history in order to act offended that anyone would make generic statements about an infamously problematic demographic. And you falsely equate any attempt to talk generically about the problematic behaviour to the same issue, as a transparent tactic to suppress discussion of the problematic behaviour entirely.
I’m sure you will have some bullshit response that will annoy me again but I’m gunna try to let it go because I find talking to you unpleasant.
Yeah sure, in the absence of any other data.
If you refuse to acknowledge that people like people similar to themselves, you’re not being honest with yourself, let alone me.
What is the systemic problem/problematic behavior that you are trying to solve? You clearly believe that white men are especially discriminatory towards other groups, which isn’t crazy, although I disagree. But are you so naive to think that if we replaced the powerful white men with powerful hispanic women (or any other combination of race and gender), racial and gender-based discrimination would suddenly end? I’m just pointing out the inconvenient truth that the system would still be biased and unfair, just with different winners and losers.
In my view, the fact that some white men are biased for or against certain groups is completely insignificant and irrelevant to solving the problems that society faces today. It’s the fundamental structure of the economic and political system that naturally results in the few individuals at the top of the hierarchy expressing a large degree of control and domination over the rest of the society.
The idea that humans are inherently predisposed to subjugate those different from themselves is a fascist belief that fascists say to justify fascism. So… Not a fan of that line of thought, thanks
It has nothing to do with subjugation, it’s just preference. I prefer to spend time with my family, I’m not subjugating other people by doing so.
But in the context of a corporate oligarchy where my absurd wealth means that my family is unfairly enriched to the detriment of the workers that I employ, it becomes subjugation. It’s not humans, it’s the socioeconomic system that exists that is causing all of this suffering and needs to be supplanted.
Normally, I only comment when i have something to add, but I just want to commend you for your high quality contribution to this sensitive topic.
Really learning a lot from this. Your arguments are solid and your phrasing is respectful. Thank you!
That’s really nice to hear. Your comment did add something, at least for me!
Pls stop generalizing this bad behavior upon all white men. It only serves to further the divide, and is completely unfair and uncalled for against those in the demographic who don’t subscribe to those beliefs or patterns of behavior.
I’m not sure if that was your intent, that’s just how it comes across and it makes it hard not to completely write off your argument/viewpoints for being unable to respect your neighbor.
I’m a white man. I can absolutely generalize about a well known aspect of reality. It isn’t in question that white men are currently in a position of overall privilege, and that as a group that position of privilege has the effect stated.
I pretty much also said that this is true in the western world where white men are the supposed majority. I said that the same would be the case with any dominant group because humans are just like that.
A generalization can not only be true in general, but it doesn’t inherently mean that the entire group is at fault (beyond any unintentional benefits from the situation, which is what’s called privilege in current discourse on matters of gender and race in specific, but applies to more than those alone).
Here’s the thing. Until and unless we, not just as white men (speaking of the group I’m in) work on calling out and correcting bad behaviors as a group, to the point that it ceases to be a problem for others, we are part of the problem, no matter how little any individual likes that.
Divisions currently exist. They will always exist because any time there is a place of authority/power, there will be those that seek it and use it. Over time, you might see a given demographic shift in and out of that place of power, but it won’t change humans being humans; there will be abuse of power.
That’s the real key. The fact that white men have held dominance over most of the world for centuries (for a given value of most, and a given value of white) is simply fact. One could argue that the position of dominance really covers all the world since anyone wanting to disrupt that has to contend against that hierarchy. There are definitely places where, within a region* white men aren’t the dominant group, kinda impossible to be otherwise. But trying to pretend that the world isn’t the way it is is just silly.
Completely agree with your points. But also hope you can see it may be more fruitful to appear as though you’re ready to attack the problem, rather than your fellow man.
I say this because I didn’t read this as an outright attack or denigration of your fellow man, but I very much fear how easily any other man may interpret it and how it could serve to further the divide and make the problem even harder to address. That is my chief concern.
I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your position fellow internet stranger <3
I think the generalization isn’t really about white men per se, but about the demographic in power. Give a group unchecked power long enough and they forget how that came to be. I agree that it’s not a rule, and maybe should be expressed as more of a heuristic: if you are speaking to someone that is in power, and you don’t look like them, they might think you are not empowered.
Don’t let the lack of nuance in that statement take away from all the very valid points being made. The plight is real, and hopefully the white men who are enlightened enough to not confuse circumstance with natural order will read and know to not take it personally.
Thank you for the civil discussion.
Completely agree about unchecked power and your interpretation of it as a heuristic rather than an ambiguously defined trait.
I most certainly realize the plight is real and wish it never was like I’d hope all of us can say. But the lack of nuance struck me as dangerous. I understand how disenfranchised men will interpret things, and when people willfully neglect the opportunity to be concise it leaves a worrying amount of room for misinterpretation and effectively is ragebait that can serve to further entrench a misguided incel or the like into their toxic niche.
And for anyone who thinks I’m overreacting: see how Reddit powermod awkward_the_turtle intentionally acted to provoke men, then wrote off everyone who took issue with it as inherently being member of the ideology they were allegedly targeting. Reddit, the company, enabled and encouraged this mod and their collaborators to attack users on their platform indiscriminately.
If Lemmy is to serve as only a new platform for abuse, then it deserves to die with the rest of social media. Please, do not let it come to this. Discuss and debate civilly.
Isn’t she the one making assumptions, though? Specifically, the “prejudice and stupidity of the person indirectly insulting her” part? I mean, is that really the only possible explanation?
What other reason would you suggest as to why he would assume that he knows more than her or that she couldn’t be the person that he’s referring to? Clearly he didn’t even know her name yet so what did he have to go by to draw those conclusions? It obviously wasn’t her lack of knowledge on the subject that they were discussing now was it?
Clearly he knew her name, though. He just didn’t know the woman he was speaking to was the woman whose work he was recommending.
And he made that assumption based on? Because, again, we know for a fact she didn’t sound ignorant on the topic.
How should I know? Or you, for that matter?
I still don’t see why adding the skin color was important, but eh, I have other things to deal with, so I don’t really care, just found it slightly annoying.
Gender not important also, loads of women “mansplain”, it’s a problem with attitude, not gender or race
Yep, I hate that word as well, but didn’t have the energy to post about it…
Because the 'splaining phenomenon is about perceived but unearned superiority which leads the 'splainer to 'splain to someone who knows a great deal more than they do and, crucially, someone who the 'splainer ought to realise knows more than they do but doesn’t because of the illusion created by the society they live in.
I’d have added “(born) middle-class” because that’s an important part of it too.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
By calling out dominant race they imply that those silent on race are talking about a minority
Only if you ignore reality.
If the post said “a Black trans women interrupted me”, would that be also fine, in your eyes?
Are Black trans women known for this kind of behaviour? Are there apologists for Black trans women who make every effort to miss the fucking point that there are people who think this isn’t a thing that happens?
The question suggests that Black trans women are all alike. It’s exactly that kind of generalization that’s being criticized.
Nobody is saying all white men are like this, what they are saying that it is only white men who do this.
Being a white man who is aware of the stereotype, I in no way feel attacked by it. I do feel aware that I need to be careful not to interrupt my colleagues or to mansplain things that I may be less knowledgeable about. This response from me is beneficial to both myself and the people I interact with.
“Only white men do X” is absolutely racist and sexist. “Mansplain” is derogatory.
I agree that it is derogatory to mansplain to someone, like to tell an expert in a subject that they don’t know what they’re talking about and thinking that’s okay because they are a woman.
What I meant is that it’s derogatory to use the term “mansplain”. Sorry for confusing you.
Nonody is “known” for that behaviour. You really just seem to ascribe personality traits to people based on their skin color. I thought we were long past that.
It is intentionally, intellectually dishonest and obtuse to pretend that condemnation of systemic problems resulting from unfair biases for/from certain demographics is as bad as the systemic problems in question.
Is that dog coming when you whistle?
Oh, don’t blame people. Don’t bring irrelevant details if you don’t want to distract them from the fucking point.
It would surprise me, but it would still be fine.
How many black trans women are in positions of authority? To not remark on that would be unusual. Mind you, the chances of a black trans woman making it to that kind of position and holding on to the kind of stupidity in the original post is pretty damn slim, hence the surprise.
It’s not obvious? Because white males as a demographic are the most privileged people on the planet and not coincidentally also the ones most prone to petty, oblivious arrogance, tantrum-throwing, and egotistical man-splaining. The latter was demonstrated by the one in this NASA scientist’s anecdote.
This robs people of their individual context. The UK Prime Ministers wife is Indian and astonishingly privileged. You are suggesting a poor mine worker from Romania is somehow more privileged based on how he looks.
Lumping people into loose categories (particularly based on skin colour) and then prescribing loose values to them is fascist and racist.
You misunderstand the concept of privilege. It’s not linear. Intersectionality was devised to solve this exact contradiction.
Expand?
Intersectionality is the idea that various forms of privilege and circumstance interact with each other to make an individual. Certain influences are more impactful upon a particular person’s circumstances, and thus influence privilege to a much greater extent. The non-linear nature that DinosaurThussy is talking about can better be shown with examples.
If you’re homeless and white it’s clear that you’re in a worse off situation than a billionaire who is black. Class status has a far greater influence on this situation. It would be fair to say that the black billionaire has more privilege due to his class status but not his ethnic identity. That being said, it’s unlikely that the white man was denied a job due to his race in a way a homeless black person may be. Being poor and white and poor and black have many commonalities, but intersectional analysis allows us to understand the different ways and avenues that particular characteristics influences the ways that a person may end up in a particular circumstance.
The idea continues on. A person who is a billionaire may be significantly shielded from a lot of racism, or face it in a less extreme way. For example, that proverbial black billionaire likely wouldn’t have many run ins with racist cops in impoverished neighborhoods. However, he still might face the unifying characteristic of being called a slur by his peers in the way that a poor black person might. His privilege of wealth may not complete inoculate him facing racism at all, even if he faces it in a less extreme way.
In essence, this situation is viewing individuals dialectic-ly. It seeks to understand how all of a person’s identity and circumstances relate to the struggles and oppression certain groups or people may face in society.
I empathise with most of this and thank you for bothering to respond without resorting to 4chan energy.
The problem that remains unresolved is the refusal of some people to acknowledge that, like in science, observation is not without cost. What ends up happening is the observation of these trends then causes casualties of blame - in your example we could say the huge population of white people who dont fundamentally see black people in any light other than equal. An insult based on a black billionaire being a greedy billionaire gets called racially charged, when actually, it’s entirely class based. This reliably means that (for example) white working class boys/girls are left to rot.
Personally I see most of these prejudicial issues being an exclusively American problem that has been exported abroad, to the extent now that its difficult to untangle.
Prejudice being exclusively a domain of America is a crazy hot take
America has prejudicial issues at astonishing levels compared to the rest of the developed world. Obviously its an absurd statement to say there is no predujude abroad in the western world, but the US has the controlling stake in it, and happens to be an infectious cultural juggernaut.
Have you forgotten who colonised most of the world, including America? This is in no way an American centric issue. Racism exists in most countries on earth.
This is what happens when you view the world through liberal idealism instead of doing any material analysis whatsoever
Systems aren’t real, they’re just imaginary, they can’t hurt you, there’s no such thing as systemic oppression just a few bad apples
Lmfao shut up
You are correct, but you can’t discuss on a rational level with people from hexbear, just give up.
For example, just because a queer person is white does not mean they experience the same privilege as a cis het white person
Or how all women are oppressed, but the tribulations of white women are Not the same as those facing women of color or trans women, they face more and more varied forms of discrimination, but it doesn’t mean that one is more important or valid than others, just materially different for example
That poor mine worker is still in a better position than an otherwise identical minority would be in the same position.
A poor mine worker is in a tough place but at least he wasn’t refused that job because the company doesn’t hire non white people.
This exporting US culture shit has got to stop
We aren’t talking about another mine worker. We are comparing 2 individuals with certain characteristics. You have instead decided to compare a third individual because the initial comparison made the concept break down
Just because someone is a certain color does not prescribe to them any specific value judgement. As soon as you do that, one of those categories becomes the ongoing scapegoat for everyone’s problems, and it becomes fascist.
Does it ever occur to you that for your arguments to make sense you have to strip it of all context, historical perspecrive or material reality.
I literally didn’t say anything about the us. I’m saying that Romanian is still better off than a minority in Romania that got discriminated again.
Any more reasons for you to smugly ignore everything everybody is repeatedly telling you.
For people who complain about how rude we are and how we’re an echo chamber you’re being shown an incredible amount of patience for how unbearably obtuse you’re intentionally being.
This is precisely the issue that I pointed at before, in reality, not everyone of a certain demographic has an advantage over everyone else of a certain demographic. Its a stupid point to attempt to initiate change because its flawed from the start
Is the context not that in STEM women often face sexism?
I honestly have to pretend that sexism in STEM is nowhere near as bad as I know it is for the sake of my own mental health. I’ve heard incredible stories of blatant sexism from colleagues and friends that I just can’t fathom
I’ve had to defend a close friend from repeated advances and touching, she was an engineer, he was 40 years older than her. It’s a problem. I’ve had good friends get taken advantage of by a PI. Gross. It’s the power dynamic in academia too where one person controls the career outcome of the PhD student. It’s really nuts out there. It’s getting better but that takes time and awareness. I’ve seen what the bad eggs do and they disgust me. It’s not just men, but there are a lot of cases of it.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00795-1
Address what I said, not something else
Is the individual context not that in STEM women often face sexism, not something else?
Do you think that the Prime Ministers wife is less privileged than the Romanian miner? How would you address the discrepancy with the group prescription?
No, no one thinks that, because part of the context there is that one of the people is married to a head of state, and one is a coal miner
You aren’t misunderstanding anything here, loser, and we aren’t dumb enough to fall for it
Do you think STEM women don’t face sexism? Address what I said, not something else.
Of course, I have first hand experience of it.
Now respond to what I said
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
You sound inexperienced. Nothing you will say will even slightly move the needle on my intent or ability to discuss things. You can cry, wail, scream, insult, have a tantrum until you are blue in the face. It makes no difference to me. If you are willing to actually discuss something, then go for it. If you are just going to project your insecurities and view everything as a fight before it’s become one, then you are the barrier to opinions changing based on new information, and nothing else.
youre deliberately misinterpreting the concept of intersectionality, it includes class.
I’m not deliberately mistinterpreting anything, if I don’t understand something, then explain it to me.
Incredibly privileged of you to assume everyone else has your spoilt middle class educational background
ok so you have deliberately removed as many brain cells as possible from your brain, understood
Do you really think that you know all there is to know? Perhaps I know something that you don’t, but you don’t know what it is. What then?
Not the “I know of this one poc that’s in a position of power and so white privilege doesn’t exist” argument lol
Did you drop a /s? This is a funny meme, so I’m assuming I just missed a joke.
Right?
(Speaking as a white male, white male entitlement, and privilege for that matter, are incredibly relevant to white men being sexist/racist.)
(You can trust me on this because I’m a white male. Also, I’m used to my opinion being listened to, so I expect you to as well. Just FYI.)
Nope, I wasn’t sarcastic, I was slightly annoyed, annoyed enough to make rhe comment but not to maje a huge deal about it.
Edit: this slap fight below this comment is the reason for this comment originally, that is why it was a joke to point out the instance, Thanks for demonstrating my point lol
I don’t know what that is supposed to mean…
I expect ignorance from your and other such instances
Yet you offer no reason for doing so…
I feel like the incomplete explanation should have been more than you expected in the first place
I get and accept that you may dislike me based on my comments in this thread, I am more confused as to what the lemmy.zip instance has done to dismiss it outright.
Because everybody makes the same shitty comments and it’s almost more tiring than anything.
If you so graciuosly “accept that we may dislike you” why can’t you understand we wouldn’t like people like you especially when it’s always the same tired bullshit from people like you.
Where did this come from?
I made one post annoyed about the skin color being complained about, I also noted that I hate the word “mansplaining”, the rest of my comments in this thread have been mostly fine.
So no, I don’t understand the intense dislike for me here, re read my comments and please see if I am so terrible.
It happens to be an instance federated with several idealogy-heavy instances, while itself being a general use instance with simple account creation procedures.
It makes it a popular choice for people who want to make multiple accounts for trolling, as well as people who have unpopular (as far as lemmy goes) ideologies. You can hopefully understand the kind of friction that could create and the reputation is the outcome.
You probably could have figured this out yourself if you just… Looked around. You shouldn’t expect people who are in disagreement with you to explain everything.
Ok, I can sort of see your explanation, but I disagree with you on the fact that other people should not be expected to explain their viewpoints to a person they disagree with.
Not explaining just leads to bickering, with no one getting any point across.
But if you explain the other party may gain a better understanding.
They dont have to you assholes wont stop offering up reasons.
Seriously look at the comments there’s damn near 100% overlap with the people bitching about how this is unfair to old white dudes and people with lemmy.something for a username
I really couldn’t have asked for a better demonstration lmao
They seem pretty God damn determined to prove they’re exactly as disingenuous and intentionally ignorant as possible.
Lot of MLKs Whote Moderates in here.
Yeah, any of them still confused shout take a step back, read over the thread again and reflect, it’s all there if they stop and think about it, hopefully at least one will, but the rest will continue to be very funny
lol. There is no point in bickering further now that you have started with the insults and ascribed me views that I do not hold, I am not the terrible person you think of, and I will not stoop down to your level and fling insults at you.
So instead I am just going to wish you a pleasant weekend and hope you realize that not everything is as you believe it to be, much less so on the internet.
There never was any fucking point I really dont know why I even bother waste my fucking time trying to talk to you dumbshit liberals who are more concerned with tone policing than acknowledging that racism and sexism exist.
hey this one might actually be legit, so worth either engaging with or just disengaging completely, fyi
Wow, this is hillarious!
You honestly seem to think you know me and my political views from a throwaway comment that I made just after getting up in the morning.
Being white is a huge risk factor for unearned confidence. So is male. Being both just multiplies the chances.
Wow! This is like saying that if someone owns an axe, they are more likely to be a serial killer. If they also have rolls of black garbage bags, then its even more likely …
That’s such a straw man. You would have no trouble saying that if someone doesn’t have an axe they are less likely to be an axe murderer
Sorry - what do you mean?
The fact that someone owns an axe and garbage bags, does nothing to their likelihood of them being a murder, just like being white and/or a male has nothing to do with the “risk of unearned confidence”.
In the US it’s all about skin colour
It’s an American obsession.
It’s an American reality. Race still influences much of American life.
Are you just going to pretend that there is no racism anywhere else? It was the Europeans that colonised half the planet and invented the concept of “whiteness”, and proceeded to divide and carve Africa up. Are you just going to pretend that this action has had no influence on modern European ideas around race and class? And I haven’t even mentioned the Roma people. Or the ongoing genocide in Palestine, which has a racial component. Or the rise of Hinduistic fascism in India. Or the issues around race in my own country in South Africa. Racism is a global issue.
All you losers acting like you dont understand why the fact it was a white male that was being the ignorant self righteous asshole just shows you aren’t actually serious with engaging with material realities.
You should all really look up what MLK Jr has to say about you white moderates and make an effort to remind yourself people like MLK Jr and Malcolm X think you’re literally worse than white supremacists.
You’re right, racism doesn’t exist outside of America
To emphasize the privilege this guy has.
Exactly.
Removed by mod
Or even the gender?
Edit: so… based on the downvotes this gets, its not OK for a male to interrupt but if it had been a female or other gender, then it would have been ok?
Male and Female aren’t genders, they’re Sex, Words used to describe biological makeup of a living creature, for example XX Chromosomes are Female, XY Chromosomes are Male, but there are also instances where XXY Chromosomes can happen, and things get a little tricky.
Gender is what we use to tell children how to behave based on their genetalia and cause dysphoria in them when they don’t want to do something but will get ostracized for doing what people with the other genetalia do.
Thanks. Its a bit confusing to me especially as a none English user. But your description of gender sounds negative. I assume a gender can be a neutral description of oneself? I am not sure.
My point here though is, that OP mentioning it was a male, is as irrelevant as their skin color. I dont see why it needs to be there when they dont add other irrelevant characteristics such as nationality, age, hair color etc.
I would encourage you to do your own research regarding sex and gender. In many parts of the world, these terms are interchangeable. As they were in the US for many years, even after the term gender was popularized.
There’s a lot more to sex than chromosomes. It’s probably better to say it’s clustering of positions on bimodal curves of traits. And even then you wind up with weird shit because biology really doesn’t like simple classifications. Like seriously there are so fucking many ways to be intersex and intersex people are downright common.
But also grammatically male and female when used to refer to humans are generally just the adjectives for man and woman.
You know when the right looks at the left and calls us batshit? Your comment is shit they point to…
What’s batshit about it? As a society we do exactly that, we tell boys to like blue and girls to like pink.
It is just mentioned. Just a description of what happened. What’s wrong about saying it was a white male when it was a white male? Why jump to the opinion that mentioning the gender or complexion has any other purpose than being descriptive?
What’s wrong about just mentioning it was a post doc asking the question?
Good god, no
deleted by creator
Also the gender?
You can’t be racist against white, duh
Edit: nobody realized this was sarcasm